Where does literature fit here?

under engineering

>>8365984
the "art" part that encompasses those themes.

>>8365984
It looks stupid. So you can probably put it anywhere

>>8365986
You have a point, you know

>>8365984

>likes to make these puerile "which discipline is better" threads
>doesn't understand that LITERATURE IS ART

Sounds right.

>>8365984
>the person who made this thinks linguistics is about learning/recording endangered languages
if you put linguistics somewhere it should be kind of close to wherever psychology is, presumably under science.

File: VMW-SS-MARVASTI-EQUATION-2[1].jpg (68KB, 727x662px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 727x662px

>>8365984
Why is Mathematics inside Art? Do i have to appreciate beauty in order to solve an equation

>>8366374
Actually beauty is an essential part of math.

>>8366102
I came here to say this

File: 13034100716.jpg (115KB, 560x416px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 560x416px

And economics is the final, outer layer.

Feels good.

>>8365984
hopefully linguistics next year, possibly philosophy as well. thinking of double majoring. philosophy bachelorette would give me nothing but the classes look fun and i'd get to meet more women

>>8366391
Stupidest shit I have ever read

>>8366940
Some places do something like PPE, and there's a lot of crossover in aspects of politics and political science with both Philosophy and Linguistics.

You won't get the same Phil heaviness as a straight major but it's probs a better looking degree. You could probably still take about as many phil courses too.

>>8365984
Oh the butthurt of that image.

Dear Image Creator,

You made that with a computer which has an operating system and internet connection and is powered by electricity.

People like you live in houses we built, drive cars we made, eat food we delivered on that shelf and then try to communicate that they are superior, usually with no real justification.

I just hope that this will help you see what's going on and fix it. Don't worry, we will keep tolerating you if it doesn't.

>>8367659
>we

>>8367672
Image grouped us, not me.

>>8367678
Where the fuck are truck drivers in the image?

>>8367695
Hopefully in the driver seats of the trucks. Are you going to ask where trucks are?

>>8367706
That's some goid old fashioned family retardation.

>>8366374
Math is the art of appreciating, finding, comparing and creating patterns, the highest form of aesthetics.

>>8367712
So you move on to attacking me because you have nothing left to say about the subject.

Ah, the smell of victory.

>>8367720
>makes retarded post
>dude you're retarded
>aha ad hominem I win

File: delicious tears.jpg (13KB, 251x229px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 251x229px

>>8367790

>>8367844
Self portrait I presume.

File: cubic formula.png (15KB, 705x540px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 705x540px

>>8366391
Is the cubic formula beautiful?

>>8367659
The image doesn't show that one is better than another

Kabbalah should be on the outside.

i am not from US (or europe, or wherever your advice might be useful).
I don't really care how my degree looks, as I intend to work at the academy or don't work anywhere at all.

I am thinking of doing linguistics+psychology as an alternative, as psychology would grant me alternatives in my life, but i am not sure if my uni would let me do that

File: Superset.png (33KB, 336x396px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 336x396px

>>8367907

>>8367911 is a reply to >>8367120

>>8366374
Mathspergs desperately want to take hold of some of the better parts their discipline lacks. It's no different to philosophy homos who try and pretend they're scientists.

>>8367790
>falling for blatant bait
You've only got yourself to blame.

>>8368023
>I no I mean he was only pretending to be retarded

>>8367932
>bigger is always better

>>8367932
I think you're wrong. In OP's post, linguistic is a part of art, and philosophy is a part of linguistic, math and a part of philosophy etc.
Just because something is a part of another, doesn't mean the lesser is anything "less" then the other; not even comparable, especially in this example where we are talking about very abstract things. It's like saying football is less than sport, because football is a part of sport, you can't even compare them

>>8368288
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction
Example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_summarization#Types_of_Summarization

First I was talking in terms of abstraction (new seperate entities that involve).
Someone, perhaps you, posted this >>8367932
I had to talk about the value of these, a different subject, so I started talking in terms of extraction (parts of entities).

About your example:
I can compare sport and football if by sport you mean football and basketball and volleyball and tennis etc. (e) Sort of like comparing products with price.
I can not compare if your sport refers one of those vaguely or some sort of absent, "spirit" sport. (a)

>>8368403
Here
I meant >>8367907
Not >>8367932

>>8366391
That's why the Fields Medal always just goes to the boomest ting, so lame bro, I feel your hurt ungly math bro.

>>8368403 I meant that you cant compare football (e) and sport (a). now that i look at it, philosophy and math for example is both (a), but i still don't see how OP's picture say how one is better than the other. maybe i just misunderstand the pic because i think otherwise, and will therefore apply that ""belief"" to the pic

>>8368537
>how one is better than the other
Bigger scope.

>>8368403
>Sort of like comparing products with price.
A better example would be comparing land.

>>8367891
I don't know but it's a poor visual representation of the structure of polynomial roots.